Sunday, November 18, 2007
Art
After traveling to Chicago for our field trip and interpretting art it got me wondering is that the way the artist would want us to interpret it? A simple interpretation of a paintng is that the artist made it that way becuase he thought it looked best, he had no special meaning. I believe that overthinking artwork sometimes leads to untrue conclusions. Most artwork has some sort of reasoning behind it, but perhaps not all. Then again, ugly artwork such as Picasso's work(in my opinion) is seen as pointless and with no meaning to me. But someone who interprets it differently, is the kind of person that makes his abstract, hard to follow artwork masterpieces. The point of this post is that i believe the beuty of art has nothing to do with the skill of the artist, but the mass interpreation of the people that view it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I do agree with your point that people's interpretations of art may not, and probably will not, be the same of the artist's "preferred" interpretation. However, I don't agree that the "beauty of art is the mass interpretation of the people that view it", because people have different perceptions of what "art" truly is, and just because one person interprets a piece differently than the general population doesn't make it a false interpretation. For example, someone might pay a few million dollars for a painting while most people would have to get paid themselves just to take the painting.
For example:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071119/lf_nm_life/
france_auction_eiffel_dc
Post a Comment